DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 1, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/21/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 4 includes additional numbering (#1-6) that is not linked in the description to any of the shown elements. Additionally, numbers 1-6 are used for reference to other elements in Fig. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, in the next to last line, should read “to fuse the one or more PE filaments into the woven, knitted, or nonwoven PE fabric…”. Claim 2, in lines 1-2, should read “combining the at least one of the woven PE fabric, knitted PE fabric, or nonwoven PE fabric with the one or more PE filaments…” and in lines 3-4 should read “directly onto the at least one of the woven PE fabric, knitted PE fabric, or nonwoven PE fabric.” Claims 5-8 and 11 should also read “the at least one of the woven PE fabric, knitted PE fabric, or nonwoven PE fabric” in the corresponding lines. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the term “mono-material” in the last line. The specification describes a polyethylene-based mono-material ([0055]) and that a mono-material can include fabric and filament of chemically identical resins or the resins can differ by macromolecule configuration and/or molecular weight ([0072]). Multiple types of PE-based resins are described/known ([0064]). The term is interpreted in view of the specification to mean that the constituent parts of the product (fabric and filaments) are based on the same material – in this case, polyethylene.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the 3D printed pattern" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the one or more PE filament fibers" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “high-temperature” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the specification does not appear to provide any indication or examples as to what temperatures or ranges would constitute a high temperature. For further examination, any relatively elevated temperature is considered to meet high temperature.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “further comprising one or more of melt-blowing or spin-bonding one or more types of PE resins to form the nonwoven PE fabric.” Claim 1 does not require the use of nonwoven PE fabric in the process, such that the intended limiting effect of claim 4 is unclear when the process uses a different fabric type (e.g., woven or knitted PE fabric).
The term “minimizing” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimizing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the claim/specification does not appear to clarify what the coefficient of thermal expansion is minimized relative to (e.g., relative to a different composition of the material? Relative to a conventional material?) and does not provide any indication or standards as to what would or would not be considered sufficiently “minimized” relative to another value. For further examination, a CTE within the range of dependent claim 8 would be considered to meet “minimized.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the PE" in the next to last line (“re-pelletizing the PE”). The claims have introduced PE yarns, PE fabrics, PE filaments, PE textile, PE resins, and PE recyclate, such that recitation of “the PE” is unclear as to what element is being referenced.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “re-pelletizing the PE by reintroducing the PE polymer textile to be pelletized to form a second PE polymer textile” in the last two lines. Claim 13 depends from claim 12, which includes “pelletizing the PE polymer textile to form a modified one or more types of PE resins.” The recitation of “re-pelletizing” and “reintroducing” in claim 13 are unclear as to whether these are second instances of a first instance of “pelletizing” in claim 12, and if so, how the same PE polymer textile (“the PE polymer textile”) is pelletized twice, or if claim 13 is further defining the “pelletizing” of claim 12. Furthermore, the recitation of “reintroducing” does not indicate what the PE polymer textile is introduced/reintroduced to, and the claim is unclear as to which element is “the PE polymer textile to be pelletized” (the PE polymer textile that is pelletized according to claim 12? The melted recyclate formed from the mono-material/PE polymer textile?). For further examination, a step of pelletizing one of the products so that another material can be made from the recycled material is considered to meet the limitation.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Busbee discloses a method for forming a fully-fashioned polyethylene (PE) polymer textile (3D printing onto textile for making footwear, [0005], [0013], [0060]; polyethylene, [0101]),
The textile comprising at least one of: one or more yarns that form at least one of a woven or a knitted fabric (the textile being woven or knit fabric, [0101], [0121]); note that Busbee also discloses a non-woven material, [0101]),
The method comprising combining the at least one of woven, knitted, or nonwoven fabric (woven/knit/non-woven textile substrate, [0101]) with one or more filaments (extruded thermoplastic filaments, [0102], [0139]) in a 3D printing process (3D printing via extrusion, [0082], for layered deposition onto substrate/textile, [0079], [0098]-[0099], [0122], see also Figs. 9-11) to fuse the one or more filaments into the woven, knitted, or nonwoven PE fabric (the material is deposited onto the substrate, [0009], and attached to the substrate, the substrate being the textile, [0013]; the melted material being flowable and conforming to the substrate, [0181], such that it fuses into the fabric).
Busbee does not disclose specifically using both PE fabric and PE filaments such that a mono-material is formed.
However, Busbee discloses each of the 3D printed thermoplastic material and the substrate being at least 50% polyethylene ([0040]). Busbee teaches the textile substrate (fabric) consisting of a thermoplastic with identical chemical composition to the 3D printed portion (filaments), such that they can be recycled without the need to separate the parts at end of life ([0013]). Busbee further discloses the 3D printed thermoplastic polymer being polyethylene ([0101], also describing the thermoplastic polymer for 3D printing being selected to match the thermoplastic textile substrate).
Accordingly, Busbee discloses the filaments being PE and teaches the fabric being the same material as the filaments. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PE filaments, as disclosed by Busbee, and to specify the fabric was a PE fabric such that it matched the filaments, such that a mono-material was formed, in order to form the article composed of the same material to facilitate recycling without the need for further separation at end of the life of the product, as taught by Busbee.
Regarding claim 2, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein combining the at least one of the woven, knitted, or nonwoven PE fabric with the one or more PE filaments in the 3D printing process further comprises extruding the one or more PE filaments/fibers (extruding, [0060]) directly onto the at least one of the woven, knitted, or nonwoven PE fabric to form the mono-material (extruding onto textile substrate, [0060], [0127], Figs. 9-11).
Regarding claim 3, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee further discloses thermal bonding/forming or exposure of the product to elevated temperatures after the 3D printing ([0100]), which is considered to meet at least high-temperature annealing.
Regarding claim 11, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. In the above described process, Busbee discloses printing the filament directly onto the fabric substrate (e.g., Figs. 9-11 printing onto substrate 1020) and does not disclose a requirement for adhesive, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the fully-fashioned PE polymer textile is substantially free of adhesives between the at least one of the woven, knitted, or nonwoven PE fabric or the one or more PE filaments.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sahanga et al., US 20220143873 A1.
Regarding claim 4, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee does not disclose one or more of melt-blowing or spin-bonding one or more types of PE resins to form the nonwoven PE fabric.
In the analogous art of recycling and manufacturing shoes comprising parts made from the same material class (Abstract), Sahanga discloses melt-blowing a thermoplastic polymer to form a nonwoven fabric ([0072], [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the PE fabric was nonwoven fabric formed by melt-blowing a thermoplastic PE resin, a known technique for forming nonwoven fabrics as shown by Sahanga, in order to predictably form a nonwoven fabric as a substrate for the process of Busbee, a suitable type of the fabric substrate as disclosed by Busbee ([0101]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mihan et al., US 20220259416 A1.
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee further discloses changing the nozzle or substrate temperature during printing, which affects the viscosity of the printed mixture, to facilitate particular properties ([0162]).
Busbee is silent as to optimizing at least one of a viscosity or a melt flow index of the at least one of the PE fabric or the one or more PE filaments to prevent one or more of filament buckling, under-extrusion, or nozzle blockage during the 3D printing process. Busbee therefore does not disclose the viscosity is optimized to achieve a melt flow index approximately in a range from about 1 gram per 10 minutes to about 15 grams per 10 minutes.
In view of the specification, “optimizing” is interpreted to encompass setting the printing material/blend and/or process parameters for successful printing ([0097]-[0106]).
In the analogous art, Mihan discloses polyethylene compositions for extrusion-based additive manufacturing (Abstract). Mihan teaches the polyethylene composition being formulated as a blend of polyethylene components ([0015]-[0016]) so as to have a melt flow index of from 0.1 to 100 g/10 minutes, or from 0.5 to 50 g/10 minutes ([0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). The composition provides for successful and controllable extrusion-based additive manufacturing of functional 3D articles ([0088]-[0091]) and therefore is reasonably understood as achieving the intended result of avoiding extrusion failures such as under-extrusion or nozzle blockage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Busbee to include optimizing at least one of a viscosity or a melt flow index of the one or more PE filaments to prevent one or more of filament buckling, under-extrusion, or nozzle blockage during the 3D printing process, wherein the viscosity of the one or more PE filaments is optimized to achieve a melt flow index approximately in a range from about 1 gram per 10 minutes to about 15 grams per 10 minutes in order to specify a suitable polyethylene composition for extrusion based additive manufacturing, as taught by Mihan.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gorin et al., US 20210299948 A1, with evidentiary support from Plastec Profiles, Typical properties of polyethylene (PE).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee does not disclose minimizing a coefficient of thermal expansion of the PE fabric or the one or more PE filaments to reduce warpage of the fully-fashioned PE polymer textile. Busbee therefore does not disclose the coefficient of thermal expansion is minimized to approximately a range from about 60 to about 150 µm/m-°C.
In the analogous art, Gorin discloses 3D printing of polyethylene materials by fused filament fabrication (Abstract). Gorin teaches formulating a thermoplastic blend based on HDPE and LDPE for extrusion ([0006]-[0007], [0011]), the blend comprising primarily HDPE ([0006]), that avoids warpage of the part ([0012]). A blend of HDPE and LDPE would have been reasonably expected to have a coefficient of thermal expansion between the CTE for LDPE and HDPE. Typical CTE values for these materials are provided below as evidenced by Plastec Profiles (unit conversion using ASM Unit Converter):
CTE
LDPE
HDPE
10-5 in/in-°F
5.6
12.2
6.1
7.2
µm/m-°C
100.8
219.6
109.8
129.6
Accordingly, Gorin teaches a printable PE blend that avoids warpage of the polyethylene-based material that has a CTE within the range of approximately 100 to 220 µm/m-°C, overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select at least the overlapping portion of the range in providing the polyethylene filaments for 3D printing in order to avoid warpage of the part, as taught by Gorin, such that the method comprised a step of minimizing a coefficient of thermal expansion of at least the PE filaments to reduce warpage of the fully-fashioned PE polymer textile.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henry et al., WO 2021154292 A1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee is silent as to setting a printing speed of the 3D printing process to approximately a range of about 10 to about 80 mm/s.
In the analogous art, Henry discloses performing FDM type additive manufacturing to fabricate three-dimensional elements on a fabric support structure (Abstract). Henry teaches typical printing speeds (travel speeds) ranging from 600 to 1500 mm/min or higher ([0046]), equivalent to about 10 to 25 mm/s or higher. The prior art range overlaps and is within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select for the similar 3D printing process of Busbee at least the overlapping portion of the range as taught by Henry in order to specify a suitable printing speed for the process of extruding onto fabric with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee is silent as to setting a nozzle-to-textile distance of the 3D printing process to approximately a range of about 0.1 to about 0.3 mm.
In the analogous art, Henry, introduced above, further discloses setting a nozzle-to-textile distance of the 3D printing process to a range of about 0.01 to about 0.3 mm, particularly to 0.2 mm ([0045]). The claimed range overlaps the prior art range, and the particular example of 0.2 mm is entirely within the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03 (I) and 2144.05 (I).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set for the 3D printing process of Busbee a nozzle-to-textile distance of approximately 0.1 to about 0.3 mm as taught by Henry in order to specify a suitable distance for 3D printing onto the fabric from above with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sahanga et al., US 20220143873 A1, and Termann et al., DE 102018002067 A1 (Espacenet translation attached and referenced below).
Regarding claim 12, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee discloses that the product comprised of the same type of material can be recycled ([0013], [0101]) and Busbee teaches the material of the product being polyethylene ([0101], see claim 1).
Accordingly, Busbee as set forth for claim 1 at least suggests recycling the PE product composed of the polymer textile, exemplified as footwear ([0005]). Busbee is silent as to pelletizing the PE polymer textile to form a modified one or more types of PE resins.
In the analogous art, Sahanga discloses recycling a shoe comprising components made from the same thermoplastic base material (Abstract, [0055]), wherein a polymer textile is pelletized to form one or more types of resin from the same material (forming milled particles 212 from the shoe 100, Figs. 1-2, [0055]-[0056], the particles being further extruded, Fig. 3, [0061]). Sahanga teaches the extruded intermediate products can produce high-quality recycled products such as a yarn, a film, and/or pellets for further processing into new shoe components ([0062]-[0064], Fig. 3). Sahanga applies the process to thermoplastic base material polymers but exemplifies use of TPU or polyamide (e.g., [0032]) and not specifically polyethylene.
In the analogous art of PE recycling for 3D printing ([0001], [0024]), Termann discloses a similar process of recycling used thermoplastic materials in order to produce new objects by 3D printing ([0010], [0022]-[0024]), the material being polyethylene ([0021], [0023]). Termann also teaches producing granules from the PE material, which are further processed into a filament that can be used in a conventional 3D printer ([0023]-[0024]). As such, Termann supports that a similar thermoplastic recycling process has been successfully applied to polyethylene-based materials.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recycling described by Busbee to specify a step of pelletizing the PE polymer textile to form a modified one or more types of PE resins in order to provide the capability of recycling the single material product to make new high quality materials for further manufacturing processes from the thermoplastic polyethylene-based product, as taught by Sahanga and Termann.
Regarding claim 13, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 12. The combination as set forth above did not address the additional steps of chopping or grinding, melting, and re-pelletizing as claimed.
However, Sahanga and Termann further disclose recycling the PE polymer textile by at least one of chopping or grinding the mono-material into smaller pieces that form a PE recyclate (Sahanga: milling the mono-material shoe to produce the particles, Fig. 2, [0056]; Termann: crushing PE material, [0023]); melting the PE recyclate (Sahanga: melting the particles for extruding intermediate product, Fig. 3, [0061]; Termann: melting, [0023]); and re-pelletizing the PE by reintroducing the PE polymer textile to be pelletized (Sahanga: forming pellets 332 from the recycled particles, Fig. 3, [0064]; Termann: obtaining granules after melting, [0023]) to form a second PE polymer textile (Sahanga: that is further processed for forming another polymer textile product, such as a shoe, [0064], Fig. 3; Termann: further processed to form PE filament, [0024]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recycling described by Busbee to further specify the processing steps of chopping or grinding, melting, and re-pelletizing as claimed in order to recycle the single material product to make new high quality materials for additional polymer textile products from an existing thermoplastic polyethylene-based product, as taught by Sahanga and Termann.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160374428 A1, Kormann et al. disclose additively manufacturing a shoe sole and teach that fabrication from a single material facilitates easy recycling ([0016], [0021]), where polyethylene can be used for manufacturing ([0021]).
US 20220071343 A1, Waatti et al. disclose 3D printing a material such as HDPE ([0066]) directly onto a textile/fabric/knit/woven/non-woven material ([0070]).
US 20210237343 A1, Ferrara et al. disclose extrusion 3D printing PE onto fabric ([0025]).
Vidakis et al. and Chong et al. (NPL) disclose extrusion-based 3D printing of recycled HDPE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754